Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


More Iraqi dinar vandal accounts[edit]

Could someone please rollback everything done by Mercy Drops (talk · contribs), Efnasharana (talk · contribs), Downez shinez (talk · contribs), and Shadow gost (talk · contribs), then block these accounts as Iraqi dinar vandal socks?

Can't someone PLEASE find out which IP is registering all these accounts, and show down anything coming from that IP? Zora 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dang, I can't figure out why Shadow gost isn't showing up properly ... Zora 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixed template for you. Fut.Perf. 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked two of them, but couldn't find Mercy Drops and Downez shinez. Misspelled names? Fut.Perf. 07:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You could request an IP check via checkuser. I don't think there's any way other than that. Grandmasterka 07:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism. Downz shinez (talk · contribs), Efnasharana (talk · contribs), Past dayz back (talk · contribs). I'm sick of this. Zora 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I asked to have a checkuser done, and jpgordon found dozens of socks Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iraqi_dinar_vandal. They all come from one IP block owned by Batelco, the government-owned Bahraini ISP. I have emailed Batelco and asked them to stop their abusive user and haven't even received a reply. So -- can we block Batelco? Can we block the creation of new accounts and stop anonIP editing from those blocks? Can someone with more clout than I have contact Batelco and tell them that access to WP will be blocked unless they police their users? We've blocked whole schools for continuing abuse. Zora 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Censoring opinions with WP:ATTACK[edit]

User:Seljuk Soldier[edit]

I have just placed another warning on User:Seljuk Soldier's talk page. This user appears to be a single-purpose account creating and editing articles that are some variation or another of ISOC (Islamic Society).[1] He has already been blocked once for recreating deleted articles (and one is currently up for speedy deletion as a recreation by this editor: University of Liverpool Islamic Society). The incident that lead me here is that ISOC (Islamic Society) is currently undergoing an AfD, and this user has once again removed the {{afd}} template from the article; I put the {{Uw-afd4}} on his talk page. Agent 86 07:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted and salted LivISOC and University of Liverpool Islamic Society, as re-creations of the latter after it was deleted in AFD (LivISOC was recreated four times). They were exactly identical to the original deleted version. --Coredesat 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Chip-india Redirects[edit]

User:Wikiga and User: are redirecting the above article to Digit (magazine). I can't find any proof of either magazine taking over the other. The above captioned editors have not provided any proof concerning the need for a redirect. Another revision by me puts me into Three Revert Rule territory. Please advise? --SilverhandTalk 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU maybe? Googling, I can't find any support for the "claim". Presumably, the IPs and the user are the same ... perhaps checkuser could determine if a 3RR block is in order? --BigDT 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That may be a good idea. Uncle G has placed a sprotect on it, but I don't think that will stop Wikiga. I left a message on Uncle G's Talk Page concerning the situation. I may invite him over here once he replies for his opinion. --SilverhandTalk 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikiga has continued redirecting unrelated magazines to Digit (magazine) and is currently blocked (for 24 hours at first; maybe there is some reason here that he just doesn't tell us?). Kusma (討論) 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted mass removal of sourced material[edit]

Can please some one look at Islamic ethics article, which was completely sourced using Encyclopedia of Islam, "Encyclopdia of ethics" by Taylor and Francis, and Mizan. Diffs are [12],[13],[14],[15]. Removal of these materials from prestigious sources was done on the basis that it is propaganda [16] and is uncomprehensible by one of our wikipedians [17].

My position is that the article already had the POV tag on it, for which the other party had the time to find the contrary information and add to the article, rather than mass-removing sourced material, which Qur'an strongly purports. And secondly, wikipedians are not expected to be scholars. Hence, if we don't understand the article, this shouldn't be a reason for mass removal of material from prestigious scholarly sources. TruthSpreaderreply 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the section on Good and bad qualities is well written and sourced. So, it makes no sense to remove it. The other section is sourced but is in bad english and needs some clean up but is sourced to one of the most prestigous scholarly sources. It needs a clean up (a clean up tag at the moment) but its removal doesn't make any sense. --Aminz 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

personal attack and abuse of personal userpage[edit]

User:Abu ali has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent, when the issue was mentioned to him, his response was to add my user name to be pointed out together with the rest of the intentional attack on zionism.

after given fair warning and increasing on his offense (such as reintroducing my username after a wikipedia admin - Ryanpostlethwaite removed it [18]) he was recieved an issue of a final warning [19].

his response was to reply with false naivity.. that he did not see offense in the "zionism = moshe katzav" issue (he actually enhanced the issue by adding two more categorical misrepresentations), while he ignored his blatantly offensive reaction (i.e. putting me out on display). i honestly feel the best summary for the innapropriate activity of this user lies behind the warning in with these words:

"this finger pointing [at me] is unacceptable, i suggest you let go of your anti-zionist bash tactics or that you merely move them to a website which allows such activity. Jaakobou 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

in conclusion, i request this user be banned due to his counterproductive and even destructive use of wikipedia. Jaakobou 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-- complaint moved from Administrator intervention against vandalism due to request by Woohookitty Jaakobou 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The user linked someone's assumed political convictions to their edits on Wikipedia. I told them not to judge edits based on the editors religious or political beliefs. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that it would be wise to remind Jaakobou to assume good faith and its incompatability with using phrases like "has decided to make usage of his wikipedia page for malice intent", "anti-zionist bash tactics" and "his response was to reply with false naivity". His compaint above is factually incorrect. He has accused me of vandalism for editing my own user page. He has accused me of making personal attacks from my user page, but declined to provide the text of these attacks (the simple reason being that no personal attacks were made by me). He has mischaracterised my reply to his "warnings" without providing a link to the text reply here and accused me of making two (unspecified) misrepresentations. If you examine his contributions you will find a mixture of personal attacks on other editors and aggrassive POV pushing (e.g. [20]). Of course Jaakobou is intitled to his opinions. And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. But other users are also intitled to observe his actions and through them to learn about the ideology that he supports. Abu ali 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
there's no need for you to remind me of "good faith" after you decided to paste my username on your page for display even after it was removed by admin Ryanpostlethwaite - [21]. your current response here follows with that same false naivity you deny (your added reply see: reply herehas no mention of abusing my username does it?).
Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
(1) And his conduct on Wikipedia (including his current attempt to ban me) is totally consistent with his ideology. (see boldened text above) - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.
(2) User Jaakobou proudly supports zionism and does not feel that being labled a zionist is a personal attack. I personally do not share his belief. But I do believe that one can learn much by examining his actions on Wikipedia. [22] - this type of accusation is simply a repetition on your assaults.
I repeat on my original request on this user so long as he insists on using wikipedia in a counter-productive manner. Jaakobou 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone ask this guy to calm down. ThanksAbu ali 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that singling out Jaakobou and posting his name in the Zionism links on Abu Ali's user page was inappropriate, and I am glad to see that Abu Ali has removed it from there. But it's not such a big deal, surely? After all, it's not as though Jaakobou considers the term to be defamatory. I don't see any inappropriate content on Abu Ali's talk page; and after all, on his own talk page, Jaakobou refers to " crack head arabs" and suggests that other editors are lying. Isn't this also a personal attack -- and racist, in addition?
There is no possible excuse for banning Abu Ali, even the original "offence", which I do not think warranted any sanction, has been remedied by him. I suggest that Jaakobou drops the whole storm in a teacup, and gets on with editing. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Roland. Personally, I don't like political material on userpages, but many people do this, and I don't know that there's a clear rule, is there? If there's not a clear rule, I think we need to be very careful about singling people out. As far as insulting people, I recently had a situation where two other users were dealing with a much more serious political accusation, and along with some admins, we talked it through and got the material removed. I think Jaakobou had a right to be annoyed, or even offended, but even alleged incivility can be dealt with civilly, and in this case I think that was accomplished with the removal of the material. I hope that resolves the issue. Best, Mackan79 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What is this? -> (1) help me RolandR, (2) help me Mackan79 <- (1) RolandR, please don't change the subtext of conversations i've had in an aggressive atttempt to present me as racist - consider this a pre-warning. (2) Abu ali has made it clear that he percieves zionism as a derogatory affiliation (see quote (2) above) and to add to a personal opinion (which he's allowed to have) he used wikipedia in a counter-productive manner to say the least. (3) considering this new multiple account activity i think Abu ali should simply use wikipedia in a productive way and entertain his perception on zionism on the regular hate-websites rather than a serious enterprize... i suggest users RolandR and Mackan79 consider doing the same (i.e. use wikipedia in a productive manner). Jaakobou 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
And presumably trying to get other users banned is an example of using "wikipedia in a productive manner"? I did hope that a word from other editors would convince you to calm down, but it seems to have had the opposite effect. Anyway this page is not the place if you insist on lashing out at me or other users. I suggest that if you want to persue this, look at the resolving disputes page. Abu ali 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(1) perhaps you should not treat warnings with provocation? (2) you can still change your mind and cease counter productive use of wikipedia... if you do this, i will not pursue further activity. (3) "lashes... or other users" (see above boldened text) is what i consider yet another personal attack which is besided the issue of your own activity which is being reported after more than fair warning. Jaakobou 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


There is no such thing as a pre-warning. If you want to complain about me, go ahead -- I'd like to see you explain how your dismissive reference to "a couple of crack head arabs" was anything but racist. And, before you accuse others of being aggressive, I suggest you take a look in the mirror. RolandR 21:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


  • you've made a fair point about my use of terminology (albeit there was no racial intention) and i have changed it[23], apologies to anyone who considered it as a racial slur.
  • i request for you to show that same anti-defamation POV in regards to the misuse made on zionism by your friend Abu ali.

Jaakobou 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

off-topic 2: fair use image issue[edit]

    • By the way, Abu, when I was looking at your userpage, I saw that you are using a fair Use image on it. Would you remove that please? Jeffpw 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • no problem Abu ali 13:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I am very surprised that anyone sees a copyright issue here. Naji al-Ali created Handala as a symbol of the Palestinian people, the image has been very widely copied by other artists and cartoonists, in graffiti, on t-shirts and elsewhere. It is universal in Palestine. Preventing use of the image in Wikipedia is almost equivalent to censoring a conscious Palestinian presence. Surely, if there is any doubt, it is possible to contact his family and establish the status of this image. RolandR 12:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No one stops you from doing just that (be sure to get a release that is acceptable to Wikipedia, not just an informal mail or even worse a telephone call). Until then, it is a fair use image, and we have to follow the image policies. Note that e.g. the famous Che Guevara photo Image:Famousphotoche.jpg is also a fair use photo. Fram 13:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But there is a difference between a cartoon character and a photo. Even if the particular version of the image used by Abu Ali is fair use, there is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent him from himself drawing and using Handala. I don't think that the idea itself is copyright. RolandR 14:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you are not allowed to do that either. Making your own version of copyrighted cartoon characters is still a copyright violation (otherwise you could make your own Dilbert cartoons and no one could stop you!). Fram 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but is Handala copyright? I don't think so, which is why the image appears so frequently on t-shirts and other commercial items. RolandR 16:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It may be free of copyright, but unless we know for sure, we have to act as if it is copyrighted. I see Calvin and Hobbes on illegal T-shirts all the time as well, but they are definitely copyrighted. We have to err on the side of caution here. 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It will be copyrighted. Copyright is automatic. The question is whether the copyright is owned by someone (the default situtation) or whether the work has been put into the public domain. There is a good explaination at Commons Regards, Ben Aveling 10:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Dear Administrators, for few days now users Azerbaijani, Mardavich and Nareklm have been inserting a neurality tag onto the Musavat page, to which I made major contributions with relevant references from Western and non-Western sources. All three users are involved in persistent edit warring of every article on Wikipedia, that I edit. I added a discussion thread to the talk page of Musavat article, asking to explain the reason for the netrality tag, and provide references countering the ones listed on this page. Yet the three users mentioned above, keep RVing the page and inserting the "neutrality" tag without any explanation whatsoever. Can you, please, advise what to do. Thanks. Atabek 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag and pointed out that it's being misused. Let's hope the users involved respect that. I'll watch it, but feel free to message me on my page if I should miss further edit warring without talkpage discussion. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

User Mel Etitis[edit]

Repeatedly adding a copyright violation image to Mika (singer) in violation of WP:3RR. The image in question has been tagged as "Replaceable Fair Use" (in violation of FUC#1) and is in violation of FUC#10 (has no rationale). According to WP:COPYVIO "the infringing content should be removed". The template {{rfu-c}} is an optional template for inviting further discussion. It describes neither an official procedure nor policy. The user has not made any objection to the image being tagged as replaceable. It is suggested that his edit warring is simply to make a WP:POINT, as the image will be speedy-deleted within 24 hours anyway. ed g2stalk 14:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Both the standard template on the image and the standard template on the article give time for editors to respond; ed g2s has been removing the image from the article despite both temnplates being in place. As there is no urgency involved, it's impossible to see why he should (be allowed to) do so. I've already raised this further up the page.
Still, I see that his aggressive over-eager approach, including misleading edit summaries, is going to be condoned again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You have repeatedly used administrator tools to rollback ed's edits; please do not use the tools for purposes other than they have been authorised for. Please consult what WP:FU states, and the involved parties can reach an amicable resolution which is consistent with the policies and the copyright laws. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If {{rfu-c}} should not be used or misrepresents policy, it should be TFD'd instead of edit warring over its use. I personally think the template makes sense, and we should keep something on the page with or instead of the image to advertise that people should try and replace the image with a free one. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There are talk page notices for requesting images ({{reqphoto}}). One could have a small notice on the article I suppose, but we don't use unfree material as a placeholder for free content (to draw an analogy to text, we don't use EB articles to pad out stubs). ed g2stalk 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to edit war as an admin, at least don't use the rollback button. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Admins need to set higher standards. /me doles out some more sanctimonious bullshit:) Nearly Headless Nick 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of nonsense prevalent about the rollback button; it provides at least as much information in the edit summary as most bots and pop-ups, more than some, and is only slightly more convenient. If I've explained my revert already, then I don't see the need to repeat it every time I make it again (my approach is surely preferable to that of ed g2s, who gives different reasons each time, at least one of which is simply false). There's also a repeated implication or even statement as here that the use of rollback is only authorised for certain situations; that was certainly not part of any policy or even guideline when I becasme an admin; has it been added somewhere since?

With regard to this issue, no-one placed the image there as a placeholder; an editor had placed it there in good faith. If it has eventually to be removed, what on Earth is the objection to doing so in a measured way, placing the relevant templates, and keeping to the deadlines that they provide? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This big difference is that it is an admin tool. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, turn the question around: if there's not a snowball's chance in hell that somebody will actually come up with a valid fair-use rationale, what's the point in insisting on the deadline and repeatedly putting the image back in again? It only creates more work for the admin who will in the end have to do the deletion. Fut.Perf. 15:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
rfu-c is a template created out of the suggestion of one user. As I have explained repeatedly - it is neither an official procedure - nor does it describe an official policy. ed g2stalk 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I guess it makes good sense to have it in borderline cases where there's actual room for disagreement. The seven-days period, however, actually is policy, isn't it? Fut.Perf. 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The actual policy is 48 hours. ed g2stalk 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one lame edit war. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic rollback summaries are fscking fast and there is a reason why they aren't provided to regular users. You should not use rollback tool to revert other user(s)' edits while in content dispute with them. They are only meant for reverting vandalism and other means of WP:POINTmongering by WP:SPA trolls or under special circumstances like reverting instances that violate WP:CANVASS and WP:SPAM. Our policies are descriptive and should not be taken in a normative manner. This image should not be used on Wikipedia as it goes explicitly against WP:FU. The subject of the picture is a living entity and hence his picture is replaceable. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, that's what people often say; now, can you point to the policy (or even a guideline) that backs up your claim about what rollback should and shouldn't be used for? (And, again, this peculiar fantasy-world notion of "replaceable"? How? What do you suggest that editors do to replace it? Start stalking actors, singers, etc, to get photos? Write and arrange a modelling session?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In my understanding, what people are supposed to do is to write to the agency and ask for an explicit realease under a free license. Which in the case of celebrities they actually have pretty good chances to obtain, because these guys have an interest in having their images here. Fut.Perf. 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel, if you disagree with Wikipeida's current fair use policy, then you should probably take this up at the appropriate talk page to discuss changes to the policy. Proto:: 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit ridiculous to complain about 3RR in regard to an article on which you have violated 3RR as well (and violated it first, from what I can tell)? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, it seems that neither of you violated 3RR. So your original accusation of 3RR would be a false one. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Mel, it is the rule against edit warring that is the problem. You took a regular user violation and used admin tools with it. I am not trying to hammer this in or anything, just clarifying my objection(edit warring is bad, but using admin tools to do it is worse). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Although of course he shouldn't be edit warring, Mel is pretty much correct regarding the rollback button. There have been a few attempts to make a policy/guideline to restrict usage of the rollback button (e.g. to vandalism reverts), but those have not met consensus. There appear to be some people that assume that such a policy/guideline exists anyway. >Radiant< 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, no. The WP:ADMIN#Reverting and Help:Reverting#Rollback pages have said this for years now. It's not like something people just made up overnight. Indeed, despite having seen the 'do not use rollback for content disputes' warning issued dozens of times this is the first I've seen someone try to claim that ISN'T the case. Reverts generally need to be explained... rollback was introduced as an exception for dealing with obvious vandalism. Thus, using rollback on things which AREN'T obvious vandalism / otherwise blatantly improper is incivil at best and disruptive/abusive at worst. That has always been the case. There was never a time when it was considered 'ok' to just go and rollback anything you wanted to. --CBD 17:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any comment on this particular dispute, beyond noting that the involved parties should know better than to edit war.
On the topic of admin rollback, it should be used with a great deal of caution – and probably avoided altogether – in any sort of dispute. It is worth noting that the ArbCom has ruled in a number of cases that using admin rollback in a dispute (particularly where longstanding editors are acting in good faith) is inadvisable; they have made findings of fact, issued restrictions, or imposed sanctions on this basis in several cases. (A quick Google finds at least four: Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu; Requests for arbitration/Guanaco; Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom; Requests for arbitration/Kosovo.)
Whether or not this particular case squeaks past as 'tolerable' or not I can't say; it is absolutely certain that a better handling of the case would have avoided the use of rollback. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lysdexia[edit] (talk · contribs) signs as "-lysdexia (still wrongly banned)" [24]. So technically all edits should be reverted? I know the name but I'm not familiar with the deeper history of this user. How should this be handled? Femto 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now revert warring at the standardized color code templates of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements and accusing me of disruption. I've blocked the IP 31 h for block evasion. Femto 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Very strange user-pair w/puppets[edit]

Cleaning up nonsensical edits to Talk:Pin pointed me to User:Elspeth Monro and User:Strento, and their unusuall edits. Strento seems to have done nothing but tagged accounts as puppets of EM, and EM has been warned a couple of times for vandalism and incivility, but none of his "puppets" have been blocked. Can someone else look @ these and see? The latter definitely doesn't seem to follow any normal editing pattern. 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


The Sinosphere article is seriously biased. James C. Bennett, founder of The Anglosphere Institute, defined Sinoshpere as a network commonwealth between Chinese people around the world. He envisages the Sinosphere as consisting of Greater China, and to some extent, its overseas Chinese population. But some Asians, especial Chinese make it to include Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Mongolia because these countries were once tributaries of imperial China. User: HongQiGong even insists on putting a link to the list of the tributaries on the article. I think this is a disrespect of other Asian countries. These links should be removed from this article. Also there is no authoritative source provided to include Mongolia to Sinosphere. The map is simply wrong and misleading. It should also be removed from the article. Could someone come and settle this dispute? Thanks. Migye 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. --InShaneee 16:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


MaindrianPace (talk · contribs) is uploading images taken from eBay and passing them off as GFDL. This user has been blocked repeatedly in the past for uploading scores of images with to copyright information.

Also take a look at Gone in 60 Seconds (1974 film). He/she uploaded fourty-two screenshots and inserted them into the article, making it completely unreadable. --Sable232 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism in Christianity article[edit]

Just noticed some inappropriate pictures of a sexual nature have been inserted into the article on Christianity. Not sure how to remove them.

I've just looked, and I don't see any pornographic pictures. ElinorD 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

New MyWikiBiz sock[edit]

I'm wondering if User:Samsara is a sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz? Check this out. -- 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Samsara didn't write that, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) did (who is now blocked). Not sure whether it should have been restored, though. —bbatsell ¿? 15:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to fill out the back story, MuscleJaw_SobSki (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is an indef blocked sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz. Given the IP's only two edits, I'd say there was a reasonably strong possibility that this is MyWikiBiz back to harass editors and push his agenda again. Gwernol 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just getting pathetic. Doesn't Gregory Kohs realize that he is clearly unwanted here? What corporation in their right mind would pay him money to write an article knowing that if it's discovered it will probably be deleted and their reputation besmirched? They're basically paying a saboteur to try to sneak in and do something against the wishes of the vast majority of our community. It just doesn't make for good business at all. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes, I concur 100% to block him straight away. But if he or someone else makes constructive edits and gets paid for it, I don't see what the big deal is as long as they're WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR compliant. To do otherwise is just cutting off our nose to spite our face, and I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Just H 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I do not see where the wishes of the vast majority of the community are against him here per Cyde's comment. Then you're not paying attention. Try here, or most succinctly, the black box here: note the sig. --Calton | Talk 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. .Some talkpage archive commented on by a few people constitutes "the consensus of the community"?
  2. . One person, Jimbo notwithstanding, represents "the consensus of the community"? You certainly don't seem to have alot of respect for the thousands of contributors that make up the "community" if you think such a narrow crossection constitutes a "consensus". Just H 03:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Your inability to pay attention is not my problem: I gave you some pointers -- which only served as a place for you to tee off a bunch of wikilawyering. One more time, and read carefully: He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now, was that clear enough, or are you going to make some disingenous claim about how I need to prove "the consensus of the community" isn't against spam? --Calton | Talk 11:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah...So when someone disagrees with you, you resort to badmouthing policy in order to protect it (or whatever the negative connotation of "wikilawyering" is supposed to be). Good job, Calton. No, what i'm saying is how can you claim "consensus" from a handful of people or even just one person? It's not entirely your fault though, many people seem to do this, a lack of a clear definition of consensus is endemic on Wikipedia, which ultimately leads to people trying to "claim" it by badmouthing anyone who disagrees with them. As for the Wikibiz guy, I can see what you're talking about in terms of bothering people, but like I said before, if he contributes constructively and NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it, kudos for him. Just H 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah...So when someone disagrees with you, you resort to badmouthing policy in order to protect it Is there an English translation available? What are you talking about?
No, what i'm saying is how can you claim "consensus" from a handful of people or even just one person? Again, your inability to pay attention is not my problem: He's been banned by Jimbo AND he's been been banned by community consensus at WP:AN -- a double whammy of longstanding processes. If you had any objections you should have made them, since they were done publically. Engaging in processwankery about the longstanding use and practice of "consensus", purely for its own sake, is something you'll have to do alone, I'm afraid.
As for the Wikibiz guy, I can see what you're talking about in terms of bothering people, but like I said before, if he contributes constructively and NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it, kudos for him' You should have written "if he contributes constructively, NPOV/V/NOR-esque edits while getting paid for it -- and everyone gets a pony!" which would have made just as much sense. You really AREN'T paying any attention, so to recap: He's a spammer. He's using Wikipedia to spam. He's even spammed Wikipedia editors trying to solicit business from them directly. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's better not to pay attention to incivil commentary like yours. There isn't going to be any riddance of him with behavior like that. He'll just come back with another name, you people will block him again, and then he'll come back with another name, and the cycle will continue until you people get sick of it and he wins. Or, you can ask him not to spam and not worry about when he makes constructive edits to the encyclopedia. Just H 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, as I noted below, MyWikiBiz is under a community ban. Strong consensus is that Kohs is NOT wanted here. If he was paying people to just write articles, we likely wouldn't've noticed. He wasn't. He was paying people to SPAM. Spam is BAD. He was blocked by Jimbo, promised to play nice, but didn't, so was reblocked. He had his second chance, and he blew it. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the previous section header here, which was misleading (and inadvertently unfair to an uninvolved editor). Newyorkbrad 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Per a motion I made on AN/I a week or so aho, MyWikiBiz/Gregory Kohs is banned by the community from editing Wikipedia, so we keep our eyes peeled for socks. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You might want to examine all articles which link to his new business, too. They're either by him or his customers, but in any case probably a priori unreliable. --Calton | Talk 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Backdash/Jacob Peters[edit]

Backdash has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of community banned Jacob Peters on WP:RFCU. However, the checkuser clerk didn't block him. Backdash is still editing and causing problems. Can someone with a mop please block the sockpuppet? Thanks in advance. C33 05:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the sock. To clarify, clerks are not required to block confirmed socks, and to imply that clerks should have is totally incorrect. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide#Enforcement states this. Daniel.Bryant 08:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it says that right on the header at WP:RFCU as well. Thatcher131 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the clerk should have blocked him. I just wanted to communicate that he hadn't been blocked yet and request that someone do so before he edited more articles. Very poor choice of words on my part. Thanks for the help! C thirty-three 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:ApocalypticDestroyer's requests a review and a lifting of the permanent block.[edit]

User:ApocalypticDestroyer's requests a review and a lifting of the permanent block. He acknowledges his past mistakes and promises not to make the same mistakes again. He promise to no longer engage in content disputes without discussion, but discuss them with users involved. He has used a number of accounts in the past, but never more than one at a time.[25]. He has made many positive contributions in the past as shown on his contributions page. He wishes to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as his main and only account, and will stick to it. Please refer to the previous ANI thread, where there is no strong consensus for a community ban. Further evidence can be found on his talk page. He wants to be unblocked so he can do useful editing and contribute usefully on wikipedia. Regards, Ben Aveling, for User:ApocalypticDestroyer's. 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to support Ben on this. After looking into things a bit, I see some evidence of bad behavior. Some of the blocks certainly seem warranted. The user doesn't seem to have been a sockpuppeteer, though (although I can't take so much account-jumping to be a good sign, I'm not convinced it's abusive per se -- he doesn't seem to have ever actively edited with more than one at a time). Still, he seems to have been a reasonably productive editor at one point, and I trust Ben's judgment. I support an unblock, provided it's made clear to this user that he should remain on exemplary behavior for the next few months -- and refrain from creating any additional accounts. Shimeru 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankfurt (Oder)[edit]

There's one user who isn't comfortable with the article name and adds POV/disputed tags to the article. When I first came over it, it looked like this. I reworked it and reworked it, read the talk page and removed the tags. In fact the article was moved due to a requested move and failed another requested move (started by that user). In the past he used different names for the city (Frankfurt an der Oder (req mov), "Frankfurt-on-Oder, as it is called in English," (article)). Since Feb 1 he's active again and sadly it turned to an edit war. My move to Frankfurt (Brandenburg) (with a reference to the airplane/aeroplane solution) wasn't accepted at all. Since that user doesn't use the talk page, please lock the article in my reworked version (Jan 22), as I believe it was the less offending one (compare to the current one). Add {{Protected}} to it and let the people discuss. If that doesn't work, there's still one alternative, I've mentioned in Talk:Frankfurt (Oder)#Some thoughts about the article name. --32X 10:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This request belongs on WP:RfP or WP:ANI. In this instance, I don't think that protection would help much, but I agree that the edits of Pmanderson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) to Frankfurt (Oder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have indeed been disruptive. I'll leave him a warning to stop edit-warring about the name and use the article talk page. For what it's worth, I agree that Frankfurt (Oder), as the official name, is the most sensible article title. Sandstein 11:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, there is yet another name, too: Frankfurt ob Oder. It's probably the best to simply make "Frankfurt" go to a disambiguation and then have all possible permutations of this city link to one article. Fighting over the article name is ridiculous. This isn't Danzigdansk. Geogre 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't make an disambiguation out of Frankfurt, since Frankfurt am Main is by > 90% the meant target. While editing the article I had to think about the Danzig/Gdansk discussion, but sadly I couldn't find it again. Since there are some references to Stettin, Breslau and Poznan in this article (I'd like to fix the name according to the made decission), I'd be happy to get a hint were to find that discussion. User talk:32X is o.k. --32X 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Himalayanashoka and his sockpuppets[edit]

The India page has been repeatedly held hostage by indefinitely-blocked user Himalayanashoka. Over and over again his sockpuppets (see here) disrupt the page in the most obsessively insidious way. The page was semi-protected for a while, which kept him at bay. However, since the protection was recently removed, he has been reborn as sockpuppets, Cerebralsun and Nutramul, and the former has already violated 3RR (although not penalized yet). I reported the sockpuppets to WP:AIV, but to no avail. Something more needs to be done, at a higher level. Please suggest and act. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • There are a few things that can be done. First of all, report all the socks to RFCU, so that they can be checkuser'd, and blocked. Secondly, a semi-protection may keep the socks at bay, or at least stem the surge. Thirdly, if such disruption continues, then it may be appropriate to propose a community ban. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I reported this one to WP:AIV as a blatantly obvious sockpuppet, and it was blocked. I see that India is now fully-protected; I hope it helps to resolve the problem. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User uploading many images with no use on Wikipedia[edit]

See [26] where User:Nasaninja has uploaded 40 images since December 11th, 2006 with no other activity on Wikipedia or attempts to include the images in an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a free file host. All 40 images should be deleted immediately and the user warned that this use of Wikipedia is not appropriate. I would list the images at WP:IFD, but it seems needless and would only clog it up slightly and there isn't a WP:CSD criteria to cover this. --MECUtalk 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All orphans gone, note left on user's talk page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Placing of inappropriate maintenance tags[edit]

New user Morristhepig11663 (talk · contribs) (account created 12:49, February 3, 2007) placed inappropriate maintenance tags on six articles (plus one unreferenced negative edit in a biographical article). I left requests to stop and undid the edits. Immediately thereafter, new user Hollinsgombayne (talk · contribs) (account created 13:00, February 3, 2007) restored the inappropriate maintenance tags on the articles. Obvious sockpuppet activity, does this m.o. appear familiar to anyone? Accurizer 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinitely blocked user Himalayanashoka and his sockpuppets below, seems to be the same puppetmaster. Accurizer 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

BJBot needs to be blocked temporarily[edit]

BJBot has recieved complaints and it needs to be blocked and have those problems fixed before continuing. The problems are:

  1. Notifying the most recent uploader of an image, instead of all uploaders or just the original uploader. Thus, users who have simply reverted image vandalism are being notified instead of the real contributors of the images.
  2. Marking messages on userpages as "minor", making the orange banner not come up, so the user is not informed that they have recieved a message.

Bjweeks has not responded to a single comment on User talk:BJBot. —Remember the dot (t) 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I have fixed #1 and 3 other bugs. I respond to the user that reported the bug not the bots talk page. Please do not block. BJTalk 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad to hear that bug #1 has been fixed. Could you please turn off your bot for 5 minutes and fix the issue with marking messages as minor changes? —Remember the dot (t) 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

#2 fixed as well. BJTalk 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. This bot does not need to be blocked, then. Apologies for being more upset about this than necessary. —Remember the dot (t) 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Review needed[edit]

I blocked User:DeanHinnen for 24 hours for continued baiting of User:BenBurch, especially at User talk:BenBurch. I advised these disputants to leave each other alone, they appear unwilling to do so. I suspect I should have blocked BenBurch as well. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Barbaric edits to Balkan topics[edit]

Barbaric (talk · contribs) created an account a few hours ago, and so far has only made controvertial and provocative edits in articles related to the Balkans, mainly those dealing with Albanians. It appears to be a vandalism-only acount created by someone already familiar with Wikipedia. - Regards, Evv 23:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


I've just recieved a vandal warning message from this user, yet, as far as I'm aware I havn't done any vandalism!! After checking his contribs, thats all he seams to do, give warning messages to users, no reversions, which suggests he's doing it randomly. Could someone look into it for me? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


This is a message to Ryan. You either have comitted vandalism, and you reverted it, or you didn't. It seems that you are not a trustworthy source either, seeing that many people made strange remarks about you and gave you a very appropriate star. Anyway, if there is a problem, contact me, but if you really did not vandalize or anything, accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul-mine (talkcontribs) 2007-02-04T00:50:25

I've said it on your talk page, please tell me what I have vandalised! And regarding the 'bitch star' on my talkpage, that was given to me by a vandal when I reverted him RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You mean the gold "bitch" star from the indefinitely blocked vandal? The issue here is, you should not leave warnings for vandalism unless you directly observe it. You don't leave warnings because someone "might" vandalize. JuJube 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we just pissing in the wind here guys, or is there an issue? Diffs? /wangi 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Theres my warning diff, turns out Soul-mine was using lupins filter and warning everything that came up. Guess in many ways it was a good faith edit, I've advised him on using lupins tool, and that everything that it filtered out isn't vandalism RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is malfunctioning[edit]

This bot is placing template:no copyright holder on GFDL licensed images clearly marked with template:GFDL-no-disclaimers; see [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. This bot is also issuing unjustified warnings regarding the uploading of images which it falsely describes as "unsourced" [38]. John254 00:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The large number of edits by this bot makes it nearly impossible to find the most recent instances of this behavior. This bot normally runs intermittently, and may start running again at any time. Therefore, I suggest that this bot be blocked until Carnildo, the operator of the bot, confirms that it has been fixed. John254 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Might just be me, but I've had a look at a couple of diffs and there's nothing wrong with OrphanBot, actually, all the images there have been lifted from anyway. Yes, the images have a licence tag, but there's no mention of the author, source, etc, which is why OrphanBot has tripped. -- Heligoland 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The bot is functioning properly. "Untagged" is not the same as "unsourced", and those images were indeed unsourced. --Carnildo 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This was listed elsewhere too... And I investigated too... nothing wrong here, and the specific examples are clearly mis-tagged too (just look at the image size). /wangi 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Persistent article/talk page IP vandal[edit]

Unsure how best to handle the vandal with IP 65.73.71.*

This is a vandal who has persistently vandalised the Labrador Retriever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article to replace cited information with fabricated quotes stating the opposite of the actual sources, to support a personal agenda on so-called "silver labradors". The page was blocked, a while later unblocked, and now reblocked again against IP vandalism. He's now begun hacking the talk page. This is twice in a day with (slightly) variable IPs. Vandalism has included editing others comments as well as the article to say the opposite of what's intended.

I'm loath to Sprotect the talk page as it has other IP contributors, and loath to block his known addresses without checking here, since possibly others will be affected and it would have to be a fair length block.

IP's used (Talk page vandalism):

IP's used (Article vandalism):

Advice on handling? FT2 (Talk | email) 03:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks for a week at a time? /wangi 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done :) —Pilotguy push to talk 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Ellis[edit]

Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs) has recently used several sockpuppet accounts to evade a one-month ban. (Evidence: [39]) These sockpuppets have caused disruption on some of Ellis's most-frequented sites, including Warren Kinsella and Rachel Marsden. Some of the sockpuppet names have also been abusive to other Wikipedians, and/or to noted public figures.

Ellis's ban was imposed on 28 November but is now slated to run to 2 March, as the clock is reset with each sockpuppet violation.

It's obvious that Ellis isn't taking his ban seriously, and I believe it's time for the community to impose a more serious punishment on him. Given the staggering number of violations we're dealing with from the last two months alone, I think a community ban may be in order. CJCurrie 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It appears that the Rachel Marsden article is currently protected on a version edited by one of the aforementioned socks. Just wanted to point that out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected. Thatcher131 15:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, and now it's been fixed. Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. For a partial list of blocks, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Bucketsofg 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse per above. Addhoc 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban --SunStar Nettalk 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I see CJCurrie and Jayjg agreeing on something... world peace cannot be far away ;) Anyway, endorse with the recognition that the person has also made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. Kla'quot 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question Do we have sufficient support for a community ban, or should we continue this discussion elsewhere? CJCurrie 23:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse per ecidence and commetns above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban. Bearcat 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Known Ellis IP[edit]

Any objections to blocking (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for an extended time, say, six months or even one year? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be able to change his IP at will, at least when he's determined about it. A long IP block won't accomplish anything. His favorite articles are permanently semi-protected already, since both he and Kinsella tear them up whenever they aren't protected. Thatcher131 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
True; still, the idea occurred to me when I noticed the comparatively tiny edit history and the suggestion that no one but Ellis has ever used it—and that he returned thereto. Thanks for the reminder. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
His IP will be stable as long as it's not blocked, but then he switches. Probably DHCP on a cable modem that he can reset by unplugging the modem. Thatcher131 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, probably... :P RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocking the IP might be a bad idea, as he'll probably go IP-switching. Roving IP edits happen... --SunStar Nettalk 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban?[edit]

I'll repeat my previous question: do we have sufficient support for a community ban, or should we continue this discussion elsewhere? CJCurrie 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see more than enough support, I tagged him with the banned user template, (he's already been indefed block) Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent socks User:Kitty's little helper, User:Keeperdog and User:Happy Fun Toy are not indef blocked yet. There may be others who have been given one-month blocks only. Could someone please do these? Kla'quot 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks, punitive?[edit]

(anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Please read our username policy and choose another name)

Anyone notice a paradox here? And this is what 90% of the usernameblocks look like, are we trying to bite people whose only crime is to pick a name that's too long, random, or non-latin?-- 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking account creation is a very new feature, and it's on by default. Presumably this is happening in error. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! -- SCZenz 16:15, 2 February 20